The qualifying draw for the 2016 European Championships is due to be made next month, and Michele Platini has come up with an extremely convoluted solution to ensuring his own country don't lose too many ranking points during the qualification process due to non-participation as hosts. They're to be included in one of the groups but on a non-competitive basis, so that everyone who faces them will be playing friendlies and the results won't count towards qualification. Can't see any nations playing full strength sides in matches against them, why run the risk of injuries or yellow/red cards ruling players out of subsequent qualifying matches?

The thing about putting the seeded big countries in a group of six because of the telly revenue they bring in doesn't sit right with me either...

SaintsCanada wrote:Now, that rule about the big guns being in the groups of 6 -- this is based on their ranking, not solely on past tv ratings, yes?

Well yeah that's the reason they're in the top seed pot, but my understanding of it is that none of the big guns would be in the group that France eventually end up getting put in because there's more money to be made from screening ten competitive internationals in England for example than there would be screening eight and two friendlies. That means that Portugal, Greece, Russia or Bosnia-Herzegovina will be the top seed in a group of five. That's not right, surely they should all have an equal chance of playing in the group of five?

SaintsCanada wrote:Now, that rule about the big guns being in the groups of 6 -- this is based on their ranking, not solely on past tv ratings, yes?

Well yeah that's the reason they're in the top seed pot, but my understanding of it is that none of the big guns would be in the group that France eventually end up getting put in because there's more money to be made from screening ten competitive internationals in England for example than there would be screening eight and two friendlies. That means that Portugal, Greece, Russia or Bosnia-Herzegovina will be the top seed in a group of five. That's not right, surely they should all have an equal chance of playing in the group of five?

Why? Presumably they could play their way into the top 5 ranking for future draws. Think of it as pot 1A (top 5 teams) and pot 1B (teams ranked 6-9).

SaintsCanada wrote:Why? Presumably they could play their way into the top 5 ranking for future draws. Think of it as pot 1A (top 5 teams) and pot 1B (teams ranked 6-9).

It's mandated in the UEFA competition regulations that Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Italy and England "must be in a group of six as they contribute the greatest TV revenue", I don't see that as anything to do with football ranking and more about viewing figures & revenue. Portugal for example are ranked 5th in the world and Greece are 12th and one place above England. Even the Swiss are ranked eighth but are in pot two. Presumably the only way the likes of Greece or Bosnia could break into that select group is if the respective FAs pester the government to implement some sort of state-sponsored shagging campaign to boost the population and increase the number of folk available to pay for telly subscriptions (and then potentially fall foul of government intervention in football ) or they get their domestic telly companies to jack up the price of football subscription packages to crazy levels to overtake that of the 'big five'. Either way it's all about $$$ and it just doesn't sit right with me. A draw should be made on sporting merit and telly revenue shouldn't be a factor I don't think, but that's the way the game currently is unfortunately.

SaintsCanada wrote:Why? Presumably they could play their way into the top 5 ranking for future draws. Think of it as pot 1A (top 5 teams) and pot 1B (teams ranked 6-9).

It's mandated in the UEFA competition regulations that Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Italy and England "must be in a group of six as they contribute the greatest TV revenue", I don't see that as anything to do with football ranking and more about viewing figures & revenue. Portugal for example are ranked 5th in the world and Greece are 12th and one place above England. Even the Swiss are ranked eighth but are in pot two. Presumably the only way the likes of Greece or Bosnia could break into that select group is if the respective FAs pester the government to implement some sort of state-sponsored shagging campaign to boost the population and increase the number of folk available to pay for telly subscriptions (and then potentially fall foul of government intervention in football ) or they get their domestic telly companies to jack up the price of football subscription packages to crazy levels to overtake that of the 'big five'. Either way it's all about $$$ and it just doesn't sit right with me. A draw should be made on sporting merit and telly revenue shouldn't be a factor I don't think, but that's the way the game currently is unfortunately.

I find the article ambiguous. I wasn't sure if it meant those five specific nations or the top-5 ranked teams.

Historically, UEFA didn't use the FIFA rankings, but their own, which used a different formula. If this rule is based on the top-5 seeds, it's fine. If it's literally just those 5 teams NO MATTER WHAT, then it's complete horse-poop.

The team of the final tournament host association, France, qualifies automaticallyfor the final tournament. The remaining teams are drawn into groups of five andsix teams. The groups are formed by the UEFA administration by means of a draw,on completion of the 2014 FIFA World Cup qualifying competition. Teams fromthe national associations whose markets have made the greatest contribution tothe European Qualifiers revenue are drawn into groups of six teams whilerespecting the seeding principles.

I don't think it is particularly bad in this context. It only means that the big nations willhave two extra competitive matches against the likes of San Marino. However, what is extremely concerning is that a precedent will be set to use revenues and market size as a criteria for seeding in the future and in circumstances where it will hinder the qualification process of teams that would otherwise have a decent shot at the finals.This is slippery-slope business and has nothing to do with sport.

I don’t have a huge problem with France being placed in the qualifiers. I know it looks quite dodgy coming from Platini but, provided the system is kept in place for future tournaments, and that full FIFA points are awarded, I think it is a good move. Given FIFA’s newly found insistence on using only FIFA rankings to seed teams, the hosts of future EURO tournaments would get severely shafted in the World Cup qualifiers (esp. if they are middling nations that have a chance of qualifying but do not do so on regular basis – I’m thinking of the EURO 2008 and 2012 hosts, one of the co-hosts of EURO 2000 and Turkey who have narrowly missed on hosting recently and probably will get it at some stage). The second point is, even though these matches will be treated as friendlies, it gives the smaller nations such as Azerbaijan or Moldova a friendly with France that they otherwise would’ve struggled to arrange. France could’ve been arranging a lucrative friendly against the likes of Brazil or Argentina instead. Finally, all teams in Europe will play the same number of competitive matches and the recent debate / controversy about teams being hard done in smaller groups (in terms of FIFA points) will not be repeated.

On the subject of the expansion, from 16 to 24 teams, I was initially against it. The main reason is the quality of football. Recent EUROs have been more enjoyable than World Cup finals. I don’t think that this is down to Japan, South Korea, the US or Nigeria being less enjoyable to watch than Greece, Poland or Denmark. It seems to me that the extra knock-out match you play in the World Cup does make quite a lot of difference in terms of how you approach the tournament.

However, I’m not sure I’m completely against it any more. While again, the concept might be promoted by greed and not benevolence, if you are from a country like Wales, and have not qualified for anything since 1958, this might be attractive. This is especially true, given that it is unlikely that UEFA’s share of World Cup places will go up. There are only 13 European nations at the 2014 World Cup. I would not be surprised to see this number go down by one or two in the future given that FIFA does not have a power base in Europe. A 24 tournament will give the average sized nations is Europe a taste of tournament football, at least once in a while.

Of course, if the future tournaments are anything like South Africa 2010, I will regret those words.

Can you look up the UEFA articles of association to see if it's mandatory that England get piss easy qualifcation groups for every major tournament? It must be in there somewhere.

When I initially heard Scotland's draw I thought we were well and truly fucked, but I reckon we've got a decent chance of second in that group. FIFA reckon we do as well, the Germans are ranked 2nd in the world but Scotland are second-highest of the teams in that group at 34th. Then it's Ireland 67, Poland 70 and Georgia 103. Thing is those three sides will all fancy their chances of second as well.

Getting off to a decent start in the group is really important here unlike previous campaigns, though we're probably going to start with a defeat as we're away to Germany first. The home game against Georgia and away game against Poland in October must yield a minimum of four points and that sets up two home games against Ireland and then Gibraltar to be sitting on ten points from the first five games. Easy. None of this playing for a draw and thinking it's a good result away from home please, I'd like to think Gordon Strachan is on board with that otherwise we should just give up right now.

Bit of a concern that the home game against Ireland is scheduled for November this year and Hampden is likely to still be out of commission as they undo all the work they're currently doing to turn it into an athletics venue for the Commonwealth Games. That means Scotland taking on Ireland at either Ibrox or Parkhead, both of which have the potential to be ruined by the sizeable population of fuckwits that inhabit the west of Scotland who will turn the match into something it shouldn't be at either venue. Shunt it to Murrayfield or take the hit on capacity and hold it at Pittodrie, safest option all round really.

I agree that everyone of Ireland, Scotland, Georgia and Poland should be aiming for second. The problem is that with all those teams likely to take points off each other, so being the best placed 3rd team is going to be difficult.

Also, the england draw has got to be a fix, they never have a single decent team in their group.

It has to be the most boring qualification group on record for England. The only consolation is a June weekend in Ljubljana for me to look forward to next year, but lord knows how the FA will gee people up to fork out top dollar for Wembley tickets for a qualifying campaign that is largely a foregone conclusion. Famous last words. And to be honest, I hope they are. It would make it more interesting. zzzzzzzzz

sjc_three wrote:It has to be the most boring qualification group on record for England. The only consolation is a June weekend in Ljubljana for me to look forward to next year, but lord knows how the FA will gee people up to fork out top dollar for Wembley tickets for a qualifying campaign that is largely a foregone conclusion. Famous last words. And to be honest, I hope they are. It would make it more interesting. zzzzzzzzz

Are they locked in to playing their friendlies at Wembley or is there scope for touring around the country? I suppose they have to keep up appearances of showing respect and consideration to their opponents but in all reality qualification will be a formality for England from this group, and as you say getting 80,000 people excited about buying tickets for qualifiers against Lithuania and Estonia is going to be rather difficult. Why not play the Swiss game at Wembley but take the other four to different parts of the country, say for example St James' Park, Villa Park, Anfield and St. Mary's.